12 South Carolina lawmakers are tax-evaders

Senator W. Greg Ryberg (R-Aiken) dropped a bombshell in the South Carolina Senate today.

He announced that twelve sitting members of the SC General Assembly have failed to properly file and pay their state income taxes. The combined liabilities of just three of the House Members who are negligent exceed $21,000.00

Ryberg explained:

“The idea that any member of the General Assembly would hold the laws of this state in so little regard that they simple ignore them when they find them inconvenient truly offends me.”

Sen. Ryberg, an outspoken advocate of fiscal discipline and efficient use of public money, proceeded to introduce a series of bills that would require legislators and state constitutional officers to pay their taxes or forfeit their public office. Gubernatorial appointees would be held to the same standard.

73,000 students trapped in failing SC schools

This school year 185 public schools across South Carolina were ranked as “failing.”

These types of under-performing schools were once called “F-schools” but they were later renamed “unsatisfactory.” Now, in the new politically correct edu-speak of Jim Rex, they are merely called “at-risk” by the State Department of Education.

No matter what you call them, these schools are primarily attended by low-income and minority children. In fact, 92% of the 73,722 students at failing schools come from low-income families and 77% are African-American.

Not only are these groups of students the most under-served in the public schools system, they are also the least likely to be able to make a real choice to attend a school other than their local public school. Their parents simply lack the money to move to a different attendance zone or enroll their children in private school. These kids are trapped (and the problem is not lack of government resources).

Spartanburg Superintendent White at it again!

South Carolina’s favorite anti-School Choice zealot, Superintendent Thomas White of Spartanburg District 7, is back with more of his “zany” taxpayer-funded antics.

Among other recent White highlights endured by the scandal-weary parents and taxpayers in Spartanburg:

Superintendent White publicly argued for “honkering down and protecting the classroom” and “accepting responsibility” as parents demanded his “immediate resignation” for White’s allocation of $200,000 in school money to a private golf club he is a member of.

Superintendent White and his lawyers defended themselves against accusations that the  golf course payout was illegal by insisting parent and taxpayers’ opinions do not make his decisions “right, wrong or indifferent.”

Superintendent responded to concerns about the three persistently failing schools in his district by insisting that choices about the education ought to be in the hands of education bureaucrats rather than parents.

Superintendent White used his new high-dollar district logo to advertise grassroots Astroturf meetings about public school choice limited public school transfers.

The Farce of Public School Transfers

If you are lucky, you might move your child  from one “average” school to another.

Many public school bureaucrats are anxious about school choice. They worry that engaged parents making choices about their student’s school may threaten the political power of their government school monopoly.

In response to an overwhelming desire by parents for more choices, some clever bureaucrats are re-packaging limited “school transfers” and “open enrollment” and deceptively calling it “public school choice.”

The problem is that parents are left with a narrow range of traditional public schools to select from and school bureaucrats are given wide powers to reject the transfer applications.

Case in point: the Oconee Public School District.

FACT CHECK: Jim Rex’s public school “choice”

Jim Rex offering “school choice” is like doctors endorsing Camels.

In 2008, 80% of public schools in South Carolina failed to meet federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals. This across-the-board drop in performance rankings led parents statewide to ask tough questions about the effectiveness of their local public school.

When parents determine that their child is not receiving sufficient instruction, what public school options do they have?

For many South Carolinians it will come as a surprise to learn that any public school choice options exist at all. In fact, since 2001, No Child Left Behind and South Carolina state law have allowed public school transfers for:

• The children of principals, teachers, and school administrators in most school districts

• Students at Title 1 (low-income) schools that have failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years in a row

• Students who have been the victim of violent crime.

• Students in schools that have recorded violent crimes for three years in a row

• Students whose parents pay the tuition based on the local dollars spent per student at the new district (up to $6,000).

Rex and bureaucrats pressured to offer so-called “choices”

The spin-masters at South Carolina’s State Department of Education are busy using their 54 cents per dollar of education spending on another vain attempt to disguise the wide spread failure of public schools in the Palmetto State.

As reported by the Associated Press and the Charleston Post and Courier, Politician Jim Rex is proud of his recent attempt to silence middle class voters with more faux-choices.

This time, he is talking about single gender classes. From the P&C story:

…”[support for single gender classes] verifies that parents have not just overwhelmingly responded to this option in the public schools … but that at least the initial experience for parents, students and teachers has been overwhelmingly positive,” said state Schools Superintendent Jim Rex.

Rex framed the results as an illustration of the potential results when parents are given a choice within the public school system, which is accountable and accessible, he said. He plans to further study students’ test scores in upcoming months to see whether single-gender classes have a positive effect on achievement. Preliminary scores show that they do…

But wait! If politicians and administrators in the public education establishment have come to recognize that parents expect and deserve a diverse range of instructional settings and methodologies that is a first step in the right direction. However, by design, a command and control style state department of education, staffed by bureaucrats in Columbia, will never be able to provide the wide and responsive range of educational services that families in South Carolina need and deserve.

If public school officials and lawmakers are conceding that variety and competition (in the form of single gender, Montessori, classical instruction, arts specialization, etc…) are both beneficial and highly desired, then the natural next step is to provide parents with a student based funding system that allows them to send their children to the school (public, private, charter, magnet or home) that they select.

The fact is, Jim Rex can’t have it both ways. When parents realize that education is a public good and that a state monopoly on instruction can’t provide the innovation and accountability that will make South Carolina competitive, they will look to real school choice as the obvious solution.

For more perspective on the questionable motives of this so-called “choice” program check out the Charleston City Paper‘s “Sterotyping for Education’s Sake” by Greg Hambrick

…But, after hearing Bragg’s [single gender] pitch, I was a little troubled by the generalizations assumed in launching these all-boys and all-girls classrooms. Things like “boys like non-fiction and girls like fiction.” Boys respond to a teacher who moves through the classroom, while girls like direct instruction. It all turned my stomach, being one of those students who often stood in the margins beyond what most boys liked. Who am I to argue with success, but this across-the-board instruction style would seem to me to leave some students in the gap…

Public Transfer Plans are a Distraction

As more and more parents in South Carolina speak out in favor of school choice, bureaucrats in the Department of Education have realized they must act. Rather than embrace a plan with parental choice and school competition, these public officials have been lobbying hard for public transfer and open enrollment programs in order to distract voters from real school choice.

Transfer options already exist for the children of principals, teachers, and administrators in most public districts. Those children generally have the option to attend any school within that district. Public choice is also federally mandated for pupils at Title I (low income) designated schools that do not meet Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years and also for students who have been the victim of a violent crime. Children attending a school in South Carolina where there have been recorded violent crimes for three consecutive years are also entitled to request transfers. Finally, there are some instances where students whose parents can afford to pay tuition based on the local dollars spent per student at their new district (in most South Carolina districts the cost to the parents is in excess of $6,000 per child) may transfer within the public system.

In all cases, transferees must receive permission from both their home district as well as from the receiving district. Final notification about failing school status and choice options are not issued until the end of September, after the new school year is well under way. The offering of a transfer option is only mandated “to the extent possible,” and when districts lack other safe schools, they are “encouraged but not required” to allow out-of-district transfers. In such an unlikely event, they have no obligation to reimburse student transportation costs. Parents whose children attend isolated and underperforming rural schools do not have practical access to public school alternatives because there are none in their districts. Those living in higher density areas fight an uphill battle when seeking permission from two separate districts for transfers.

Although the public transfer options apply to a large number of schools, true school choice is not possible when limited to public schools. In 2004 there were 90 schools in South Carolina deemed low-performing by the US Department of Education. According to a 2005 report there are only 519 students in South Carolina who participate in public school choice. Parents have to pay their own transportation costs, fight with bureaucrats from both the out-going and incoming schools, and often they are left with only a “choice” between several failing public schools in their county. Meanwhile wealthy

School Choice News Round-Up

An oddly-title report by Education Oversight Committee (“Closing the Achievement Gap”) found that “the sizes of the achievement gaps in English/Language Arts and math in 2007 generally increased compared to 2006, reflecting the general lack of progress overall in performance on the ELA and math tests.”

A former assistant principal from Sumter District 17 has been ordered to pay $44,000 more in restitution for his part in a $3 million scheme to defraud taxpayers.

Richland County’s central plan for school infrastructure continues to spiral out of control. A new estimate puts the bill at $620 million, or 13 percent above the last upward revision.

Spartanburg District 7 adopted a watered down public transfer plan. Strict limitations on school capacity, district boundaries, re-applications, and lack of transportation funding will ensure that only a select few children will enjoy the ability to change from one underperforming public school to another.

The Cincinnati Enquirer wrote an excellent article detailing how school choice in Ohio has led to urban renewal in parts of Cincinnati where low-income parents have access to choice schools.

Public Transfer is Not Choice, Lacks Support

State lawmakers on the House Education Committee have rejected HB 4391, the so-called “Public School Choice Program.” This oddly titled proposal would neither mandate nor fund transfer of students between public schools. Nor would it provide parents with real choice in the form of access to independent, private, and home school options.

South Carolina law already allows parents to request transfers within or out of their districts. Federal law also provides for the transfer of many students attending low-income and failing schools. The proposed plan would simply create more administrative resistance to this complicated process. It would not address the fact that such transferring students are required to pay the locally raised portion of school operating costs out of pocket.

Like the failed public transfer proposal Jim Rex petitioned for last session this new bill offers parents nothing that existing state and federal law do not already mandate. More importantly, the proposal would create a complex system of overlapping local authorities, all of which have the ability to prevent transfers in and out of their districts

The Greenville News explained:

Members complained the bill didn’t do enough.

“I guess I’m not seeing this does much,” Rep. Bill Whitmire of Walhalla, who chairs the House education subcommittee, told the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ted Pitts of Lexington.

This year’s bill, like last, was championed by state Education Superintendent Jim Rex, who opposes any private voucher system but wants to foster more choices within public schools.

Pitts said this year’s bill was changed to remove the mandatory cross-district transfer provision, the part of the bill he said most cost the legislation votes last year.

But making it voluntary also removed the “teeth” from the bill, according to Whitmire, who said most of what the bill offers can already be done by school districts.

Public school transfer mechanisms are not school choice. Real choice includes unfettered access to the full range of educational opportunities: magnet schools, charter schools, home schooling and private schools as well as public ones. Public transfer, and in particular limited transfer with heavy local discretion, is a costly distraction from meaningful education reform.

False “Choice” and the Race Card

Last Monday, the State Newspaper ran an article entitled “Racial disparity follows schools,” with the subtitle “Kershaw County facing unanticipated consequences of school choice.”

Reporter Joy Woodson wrote that in Camden a lack of specific public elementary school attendance zones has resulted in “racial imbalances and some perceived inequities.” She went on to posit that because parents were able to choose which school their children attend, existing racial and funding differences had been magnified. She sees these shortcomings as indicative of the failure of “School Choice.” While enrollment data from the State Department of Education do indicate disparities, the culprit is a Jim Rex style public transfer program, not real School Choice.

Woodson made three major errors in her analysis:

1. Public school transfer is NOT real School Choice. She mistakenly uses the terms interchangeably.
2. Nationwide real choice schools are actually MORE racially integrated than public schools. She wrongly suggests that segregation is inevitable when parents have choices.
3. Arguing categorically against parental choice is anti-democratic. She suggests that parents don’t know their own best interests (but luckily she does).

Real School Choice means the ability of parents to freely select from the full range of educational options for their children. These include private schools, charter schools, home schooling and traditional neighborhood public schools. The wide range of options fosters innovation and holds administrators accountable to parents who can easily move their children to better performing classrooms elsewhere.

Public transfer (0r “open enrollment” in the case of Kershaw) is merely a narrow selection between a small number of underperforming public schools. In Kershaw, two of the three schools that Woodson mentions failed to meet federally defined Adequate Yearly Progress in 2007. There is no way that the one “adequate” school has the capacity to accept all the incoming transfers from the other two schools.

While Woodson worries that parents are self-segregating in Camden, analysis of the US Department of Education’s Education Longitudinal Study indicate that private school students report higher levels of racial integration than public ones (as measured by personal friendships and interaction across racial lines). Unlike the Kershaw public transfer program, students are not merely shuffled around in a closed system. Friedman Foundation researcher Greg Forester, PhD has also found that:

“The existing empirical research indicates that segregation levels in private schools are not substantially different from those in public schools when examined at the school level; that private schools are actually less segregated than public schools when examined at the classroom level; and that private schools participating in voucher programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland and Washington D.C. are much less segregated than public schools.”

More disturbing than Woodson’s failure to differentiate between “transfer” and “choice” and her lack of empirical context about integration and choice, is the fundamentally anti-democratic tone of her argument.

By insisting that, given the opportunity to choose among schools, individual parents will make choices that are against their collective best interest, Woodson is suggesting that she knows what is best for parents. This condescending command-and-control mentality is precisely the reason that South Carolina public schools have the nation’s lowest on-time graduation rate and second lowest SAT scores. Top down bureaucratic administration, even when acting in the name of social progressivism, is the problem, not the solution.

Contact Joy Woodson and let the reporters and editorialists at The State Newspaper know that real education reform means Choice for parents and requires honesty in journalism.